lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jan]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateSun, 28 Jan 2007 16:24:35 +0100
FromIngo Molnar <>
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/7] barrier: a scalable synchonisation barrier
* Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 12:51:21PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > This barrier thing is constructed so that it will not write in the 
> > sync() condition (the hot path) when there are no active lock 
> > sections; thus avoiding cacheline bouncing. -- I'm just not sure how 
> > this will work out in relation to PI. We might track those in the 
> > barrier scope and boost those by the max prio of the blockers.
> 
> Is this really needed?  We seem to grow new funky locking algorithms 
> exponentially, while people already have a hard time understanding the 
> existing ones.

yes, it's needed.

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-01-28 16:29    [from the cache]
©2003-2008